We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

New Jersey Appellate Division confirms that PIP disputes between carriers must be arbitrated even in complex matters

On March 4, 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that all disputes between insurers arising from motor vehicle accidents, when more than one carrier could be responsible for paying Personal Injury Protection Benefits (PIP), must be resolved through arbitration.

In State Farm Indemnity Company v. National Liability & Fire Insurance Co., 439 N.J. Super. 532 (App. Div. 2015), a dispute arose between two insurance carriers as to which one was responsible for paying PIP benefits to an injured party. The victim, who had no insurance, was struck by a car while riding a bicycle. He allegedly lived with his father and cousin, each of whom had insurance policies with separate companies. State Farm paid the PIP benefits, and then filed suit in the Law Division against National for an order to compel arbitration. National argued that the matter was a coverage action that should remain in the trial court, as there were serious factual issues regarding the injured party’s residence. The Appellate Division disagreed and reiterated the arbitration requirements found inN.J.S.A. 39:6A-11 which requires inter-company arbitration.

The decision in State Farm is another example of the New Jersey courts upholding the public policy and purpose of the State’s “no fault” laws which is to expedite PIP disputes. Arguments between insurers that occur when more than one carrier could be responsible for PIP benefits are subject to arbitration. PIP arbitrations cannot be avoided by characterizing claims as “too complex” or “coverage actions”.

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

"Lexology is a quick and useful indicator of developments in the legal sphere. It alerts me to changes taking place in the legal environment in South Africa that I may not otherwise have spotted or had immediate access to as a company lawyer. It definitely serves as a trigger for me to investigate such changes in the legal landscape in South Africa as they may affect my work and that of my employer. I believe that receiving Lexology provides me with a competitive advantage."